God does not exist. Prove me wrong. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

God does not exist. Prove me wrong.
in Philosophy

By RS_masterRS_master 34 Pts edited July 26
Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Arguments

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 57 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @RS_master ;Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.

    In christianity we live by faith, not by proof. 

    Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

    "For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?"  (Romans 8:24)

    hope
    ἐλπίδι (elpidi)
    Noun - Dative Feminine Singular
    Strong's Greek 1680:  Hope, expectation, trust, confidence. From a primary elpo; expectation or confidence.

    God is not looking to prove Himself to you. Can you think of a reason why that would be the case?
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    Being that this is the internet, you're going to get two types of answers;

    The anti religious point of view answer.

    And the religious point of view answer.

    Religion based questions, are just as popular as the political based questions are.

    God exists, Jesus exists, the Bible exists, and the religious buildings exists.

    And millions of people around the globe, go to a mass, or a religious service weekly, of all ages.

    I view the question, from the existence of those happenings.

    Because unless an anti religious person has a time machine, and can go back to the time when Jesus walked the face of this earth, and can say conclusively with their own eyes, that they didn't see him, with the help of that time machine?

    Then the religious answer, is just as good, as the, anti religious answer is.
    Zombieguy1987ZeusAres42
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 112 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    That's not hard. 

    Short answer, Jesus Christ.

    Ling answer:

    A CLIA Examination of Textile collection review & technical construction file for the burial cloth associated with Jesus Christs burial ,as

    1.) the subject for lab test examination determined the following:


    Evidence report summary and test findings of a blood specimen sample removed from the cloth

    1.) Chromosomal abnornalties in the genetic sample tested were determined to exist.

    Abnormalities
    1.)The subjects blood specimen sample produced an irregular 24 total chromosomes in the gene and short sequence of DNA used to identify chromosomal sequences and when locating other genes in a genetic map.

    3.) The subjects blood specimen sample produced a Y chromosome with no human origin or human characteristics in the short sequence.

    Conclusion of summary of findings:

    Abnormal genetic characteristics exist within the tested sample and Gene sequence tested. Recurrent testing produced consistent results in each re-test, to ensure accuracy of each test result. Due to the nature of the samples tested, the subject having half the total amount of the chromosomes determined:

    1.)a chrmosomal difference between known subjects born of sexual reproduction 

    As subject had only twenty-four of the total fourty-six chrmosomes of a person who had a natural birth.

    As a result,

    2.) the subject is, based on the genetic characteristics of the specimen examined and the repetitive tests performed to have been born of a virgin.

    Lab test performed by thaler

    Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from females to their offspring.

    As a result, animal species that pass on mitochondrial DNA leave generic markers.

    Human beings also leave generic markers.

    If reproduction determines how genetic information is passed on , then any animal life responsible for evolution would be present in mitochondrial DNA

    Except,

    The lab test determined animal and human life to have the same genetic day or origin

    2. That Adams genological record supports the genetic test results found in the lab report.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited July 16 Winning Argument ✓
    @ZeusAres42

    Richard Dawkins, can't take his anti religious opinion back can he?

    Another anti religious individual, thought, that he was being wise, by sharing Mr. Dawkins quotation, and thought that the other like minded anti religious individuals, like himself, would get a kick, out of such a statement, because this is the internet, and some of the anti religious individuals, can carry on with such unfounded statements, and no ones, going to challenge them on their anti religious, quotations, or opinions?

    When the anti religious wants to make statements, about Christian parents, in regards to their kids, they're crossing a line, that they can't back up from, can they? 

    "Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children? "


    "Dawkins Thinks So"


    "Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse."

    "Call it “child abuse” and you get everybody’s attention. That’s the latest headline-gaining tactic employed by atheists whose agenda is to “protect” children from their parents’ religion. The Daily Mail has tweaked the “twitters” once again by its article opening with “Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as ‘child abuse.’”1

    Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse. He considers this form of “abuse” to be more devastatingly and permanently harmful than sexual abuse. Though he has said this before, his remarks returned to headline status after he reiterated these claims April 21 at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival. "

    "Misuse of the Term “Child Abuse”

    "This gross misuse of the phrase “child abuse” by Dawkins is not unique to him. Just a few months ago, another outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss, labeled the teaching of young-earth creationism as “child abuse.” And a 1997 speech by Amnesty International spokesman Nicholas Humphrey proclaimed that “freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with” and then just seconds later illogically and inconsistently proclaimed that society should protect children from their parents’ religious teaching.2 "


    "The Attack on Christianity"

    "Dawkins, Krauss, Humphrey, and countless others get a great deal of attention by claiming that teaching children to accept the religious beliefs of their parents is abusive. The particular anecdotal example Dawkins uses to “prove” his point—that religious teaching is a more crippling form of child abuse than physical abuse—is recounted in his 2006 book The God Delusion. Dawkins wrote the following:

    I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst.4

    Dawkins says, “But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.”5

    Dawkins and others, like Humphrey, are very much in the habit of engaging in logical fallacies in their rhetoric attacking both Christianity and religious teaching for children. They condemn biblical Christianity along with other religions, including those that do have oppressive doctrinal tenets. They unjustly and erroneously blame cultural and societal evils (like the view that children and women are property) on biblical Christianity. They lump biblical Christianity in with cultic aberrations like the Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinkers and with greed-motivated, power-mongering, historical misuses of religion by those seeking personal gain and political power.6

    Biblical history, in contrast to the assertions in these straw man arguments, reveals that the real cause of such evils is the sinful nature of man. God created man and woman—Adam and Eve—as perfectly good people, but they chose to rebel against God. The evils in the world are not God’s fault, but man’s. And likewise the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity are man’s fault, not God’s. (For that matter, all the evils perpetrated regardless of the excuse given are man’s fault, not God’s.) And a proper understanding of biblical Christianity should not only arm people against falling for cultic claims and false rallying cries but also enable them to see that the claims made by people like Dawkins just don’t hold water. "


    "How Dawkins Thinks We Should Teach Children"

    "Dawkins claims that we should teach children about religions so that they can understand literature, but that we should discourage them from actually embracing any belief. “There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,” Dawkins says, adding, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.”7

    Dawkins calls it child abuse for parents to teach their children that they should actually believewhat their parents believe (unless of course the parents embrace the religion of atheism, which Dawkins fails to acknowledge is itself a “religion”—a belief that God does not exist). He labels religious teaching “indoctrination.” As one journalist correctly observes, “Religious people, though, would argue that advancing Dawkins’ views on evolution and the lack of a deity would also constitute a form of indoctrination, especially if these elements are trumped as ‘reason’ and held above theological standing.” 8 Thus, Dawkins is not at all opposed to indoctrinating children so long as they are indoctrinated to believe as he does. Let’s examine his take on religious teaching for children from several angles."

    "Withhold Your Personal Beliefs from Your Children"

    "First of all, consider the rather preposterous notion that Dawkins would have parents teach their children that people believe lots of things, yet they should refrain from teaching what they personally believe. Going even farther, the Daily Mail reports he said that when teaching religion and parental beliefs, “scorn should be poured on its claims.”9 Dawkins would therefore encourage all parents with religious convictions (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to lie to their children. Such a practice would in fact require Christian parents to weave a whole web of deception. And they should weave this web of deception in order to deprive their children of knowledge they themselves believe is valuable and even essential for life.

    Aside from the complete lack of integrity such a behavior would require, such a nonsensical scenario would deprive a child of any knowledge of what or whom to believe, trust, and respect. Children so raised would have no idea of how to gain knowledge and understanding of the world—at least unless the state stepped in and indoctrinated them in accord with a Dawkins-style belief system.

    For in truth, even the atheistic belief that there is no God is a religion. Atheists claim they are non-religious, but they use their set of beliefs as a way to explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). There is no such thing as a non-religious person—you are either for Jesus Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30). Dawkins states that he is committed to a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, Dawkins has chosen to exclude all supernatural ideas about our origins and about his own eternal destiny. In essence, Dawkins is merely advocating that children be indoctrinated in accord with hisbeliefs rather than their parents’ beliefs. And because he is particularly bothered by the idea that there is an actual hell where some people will suffer for eternity, he labels such a teaching as “abusive.” "

    "A Distorted Understanding of Christianity"

    "Secondly, Dawkins has a very distorted understanding of Christianity. In his oft-cited anecdote to justify the non-teaching of faith to children, he refers to “the mental abuse of being told about Hell.” In a January interview, Dawkins said, “‘It seems to me that telling children such that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever … It seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress’ than being sexually abused.” 10 "


    “Forcing” Religion on Your Children"

    "Finally, Dawkins seems to think that teaching a child to identify with the parents’ faith is the same as “forcing” a religion on the child. He says, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.”

    "Yet history, common sense, and the Bible make it clear that ultimately no person can be coerced to believe anything by another individual—God’s Word teaches that each person is held accountable for his or her own beliefs and actions. Freedom of religion is about being allowed to live in accordance with your own religious beliefs. (Furthermore, freedom of religion includes the freedom to teach your children your faith—the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.)11 "

    "Throughout history parents have taught their children their own religious beliefs. And throughout history children have eventually evaluated these teachings for themselves—some reject their parents’ beliefs and others do not. We at Answers in Genesis emphasize the importance of giving children true biblical answers about life and life’s issues—not to indoctrinate them or to enslave their minds—but to equip them. We want children to grow up with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the most important decisions in life. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "

    "Conclusion: What Really Harms a Child"

    "Child abuse? We hate to abuse the term, as Dawkins and others do. Still, we have to point out that the very things Dawkins advocates—to deprive a child of living water (John 4:10–14) and the spiritual nourishment (1 Corinthians 3:2Hebrews 5:141 Corinthians 10:1–4) available in the Bible, to deprive a child of the knowledge that they were created by a God who loves them (John 3:16Colossians 1:16John 1:3–4,12–14), to deprive a child of the knowledge that the evils of life are rooted in man’s sinful decisions, to deprive a child of biblical answers for life’s greatest questions, to deprive a child of the truth about how to be saved now and forever, to deprive a child of the knowledge that “Jesus loves me” (Galatians 2:20)—can cripple and irreparably harm a child, for now and eternity."

    "As Christian parents, when you ponder your responsibility to teach your children what the Bible says, remember that they can best build genuine faith in Jesus Christ through God’s powerful Word (Romans 10:17Romans 1:16Hebrews 4:12). It is no wonder that self-appointed enemies of Jesus Christ—like Dawkins and Krauss—are afraid for you to teach Scripture to your children. It is no wonder that the enemies of God want to stigmatize religion—and especially Christianity—by the inflammatory epithet of “child abuse.” Take heart and don’t fail in your God-given responsibility. Don’t be intimidated by the twenty-first century echoes of the mantra espoused by so many parents during the last few decades of the twentieth—to let their children grow up with no religious instruction under the illusion they would one day seek out any information they need. Instead, remember daily what the Apostle Paul told to his protégé Timothy, recalling that Timothy’s mother and grandmother had taught him God’s Word from childhood:

    But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:13–17) "


    I get the impression that maybe, Mr. Dawkins, enjoys the spotlight, that via, his own mouth, self created for himself?

    The below, is from reference material for you.

    https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/is-it-child-abuse-to-teach-christianity-to-your-children-dawkins-thinks-so/

    @ZeusAres42


    "Why should the "epistemically neutral position/term" have to only to apply to just science? Why also not philosophy? 

    I'm not trying to educate you on anything. I'm just inviting you to at least entertain the idea that there might be a neutral position on this matter. 

    And maybe if you are at least willing to engage in an enjoyable exchange of ideas I'm sure that you will probably teach me something that I didn't know or consider which I'm all very open to.  

    Or you can just continue to be needlessly defensive; the choice is yours. "

    I'm not being defensive, I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.

    And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?

    So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity?


    RickeyD
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 847 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓

    Exactly where in this thread did I mention anything about Richard Dawkins, or talk about any of the things that you referenced in your response to me?

    Also, would you care to actually take issue with the actual content of what I specifically said rather than conjecturing up theories about why I might have said what I said.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 847 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @Dee ;

    @TKDB 

    You’re obviously insane you never address anything asked all you do is tell others what you think they mean instead of what they actually say , you finish every sentence with a question mark .....yes you’re quiet mad 
    I myself have in this thread tried to be patient, kind, and give TKDB the benefit of the doubt. He is doing the exact same thing to you as he is me, and I'm taking the neutral position. I think my efforts here are obviously futile.  


    PlaffelvohfenDee

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • crossedcrossed 57 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓

    proof of god he measured the sun and moon out.


    The sun and moon are the same exact size from the viewpoint of earth. This is what make a perfect solar eclipse possible.


    Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible

    Quote taken from here.



    To do this god would had to measure this out.


    The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon but the sun is also 400 time farther away from the moon.

    God literally measured the sun out with the moon in mind so they both are the exact same size from the viewpoint of earth. So during a solar eclipse the sun perfectly covers the moon. God made the sun 400 times bigger than the moon and then measured the sun out and placed exactly 400 times farther away so they would be the exact same size.

    the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses

    Quote taken from here

    https://kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe


    Beside the precision of numbers god is clearly an architect. Here is an example so you can see the preciseness. I am making a Godzilla  movie. To do this i need my pet lizard named Bluebeller and my sisters doll house. The problem is Bluebeller is 400 times smaller than the dollhouse. I need Bluebeller to be the exact same size as the dollhouse. So i place Bluebeller 400 times farther away so it appeared that Bluebeller was the same size as my sister dollhouse to make one sick movie.



    The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon so god placed it 400 times farther away so they appear to be the exact same size from earth.



    the dollhouse is 400 times bigger then my lizard. so i place the lizard 400 times farther away so my lizard would be the same size as the dollhouse. So i can make a good Godzilla movie


    RS_masterPlaffelvohfen
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    You have effectively laid the burden of proof on yourself by making the affirmative claim it’s up to you to prove there is no god. The opposite is also true when a believer claims there is a god the burden lies squarely with him /her to prove the veracity of the statement 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42RS_master

  • Being that this is the internet, you're going to get two types of answers;

    The anti religious point of view answer.

    And the religious point of view answer.

    Religion based questions, are just as popular as the political based questions are.

    God exists, Jesus exists, the Bible exists, and the religious buildings exists.

    And millions of people around the globe, go to a mass, or a religious service weekly, of all ages.

    I view the question, from the existence of those happenings.

    Because unless an anti religious person has a time machine, and can go back to the time when Jesus walked the face of this earth, and can say conclusively with their own eyes, that they didn't see him, with the help of that time machine?

    Then the religious answer, is just as good, as the, anti religious answer is.

    Did you ever stop and consider the third option? The epistemically neutral answer?


    Plaffelvohfen

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    Absolute nonsense and has been  debunked several times 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited July 15
    @ZeusAres42

    "Did you ever stop and consider the third option? The epistemic-ally neutral answer?"


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o2qUHhVJFk

    So basically what you're implying, in a sense, because you took the time, to apparently want to educate me, on the below? 
     

    "The Vocabulary of Science:

    First Steps to Science Literacy" This video course was originally produced as a paid course for Udemy and my Critical Thinker Academy website. "


    Thank you for teaching me, in regards to the vocabulary of science? 

    IE Science Literacy right? 

    God exists, Jesus exists, Religious buildings around the globe exists, millions of peaceful religious individuals around the globe exists, science exists, the internet exists, the anti religious individuals exists, just like the words vocabulary, and literacy exist? 

  • Why should the "epistemically neutral position/term" have to only to apply to just science? Why also not philosophy?

    I'm not trying to educate you on anything. I'm just inviting you to at least entertain the idea that there might be a neutral position on this matter.

    And maybe if you are at least willing to engage in an enjoyable exchange of ideas I'm sure that you will probably teach me something that I didn't know or consider which I'm all very open to. 

    Or you can just continue to be needlessly defensive; the choice is yours.

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • The CLIA is the only accredited science bureau for human biological testing and genetic researchr so Dee again your a moron , and to say  David S. Thaler who currently works at the Biozentrum - Center for Molecular Life Sciences, University of Basel. Has been debunked severalstimes when the testtcame outoabout 14 days agoadetermines youveyolosl credibility as a completecmoron. Thaler does research in and teaches Genetics and Microbiology.
    Current institution
    University of Basel | UNIBAS
    Biozentrum - Center for Molecular Life Sciences
    Current position
    Skills and Expertise
    PCRGeneticsMutationMicrobial IsolationAntimicrobial ResistanceEscherichia ColiMicrobial GeneticsRecombination

    Hes an atheist . When atheists disagree with other atheists. The problem is now your disagreeing with evidence. That means your not scientific which means your dumb. You lack a normal level of intelligence.
  • I want Dee to articulate how a lab test that came out recently has been debunked when it was added to the scientific journal.

    I want that to be explaination.
    RS_masterPlaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    You claimed Doofus........

    A CLIA Examination of Textile collection review & technical construction file for the burial cloth associated with Jesus Christs burial ,as 

    1.) the subject for lab test examination determined the following:


    Evidence report summary and test findings of a blood specimen sample removed from the cloth

    1.) Chromosomal abnornalties in the genetic sample tested were determined to exist.

    Abnormalities
    1.)The subjects blood specimen sample produced an irregular 24 total chromosomes in the gene and short sequence of DNA used to identify chromosomal sequences and when locating other genes in a genetic map.

    3.) The subjects blood specimen sample produced a Y chromosome with no human origin or human characteristics in the short sequence.


    I’m still waiting on your proof of your claim  Doofus
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    All your piece does is name some scientist who says nothing about your Jesus claim you idiot 
    RS_master
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited July 16
    @ZeusAres42

    Come on you can present an argument for the below can't you?

    I'm defending Christian families, while you appear to be defending your individual argument?

    Richard Dawkins, can't take his anti religious opinion back can he?

    Another anti religious individual, thought, that he was being wise, by sharing Mr. Dawkins quotation, and thought that the other like minded anti religious individuals, like himself, would get a kick, out of such a statement, because this is the internet, and some of the anti religious individuals, can carry on with such unfounded statements, and no ones, going to challenge them on their anti religious, quotations, or opinions?

    When the anti religious wants to make statements, about Christian parents, in regards to their kids, they're crossing a line, that they can't back up from, can they? 

    "Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children? "


    "Dawkins Thinks So"


    "Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse."

    "Call it “child abuse” and you get everybody’s attention. That’s the latest headline-gaining tactic employed by atheists whose agenda is to “protect” children from their parents’ religion. The Daily Mail has tweaked the “twitters” once again by its article opening with “Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as ‘child abuse.’”1

    Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse. He considers this form of “abuse” to be more devastatingly and permanently harmful than sexual abuse. Though he has said this before, his remarks returned to headline status after he reiterated these claims April 21 at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival. "

    "Misuse of the Term “Child Abuse”

    "This gross misuse of the phrase “child abuse” by Dawkins is not unique to him. Just a few months ago, another outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss, labeled the teaching of young-earth creationism as “child abuse.” And a 1997 speech by Amnesty International spokesman Nicholas Humphrey proclaimed that “freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with” and then just seconds later illogically and inconsistently proclaimed that society should protect children from their parents’ religious teaching.2 "


    "The Attack on Christianity"

    "Dawkins, Krauss, Humphrey, and countless others get a great deal of attention by claiming that teaching children to accept the religious beliefs of their parents is abusive. The particular anecdotal example Dawkins uses to “prove” his point—that religious teaching is a more crippling form of child abuse than physical abuse—is recounted in his 2006 book The God Delusion. Dawkins wrote the following:

    I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst.4

    Dawkins says, “But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.”5

    Dawkins and others, like Humphrey, are very much in the habit of engaging in logical fallacies in their rhetoric attacking both Christianity and religious teaching for children. They condemn biblical Christianity along with other religions, including those that do have oppressive doctrinal tenets. They unjustly and erroneously blame cultural and societal evils (like the view that children and women are property) on biblical Christianity. They lump biblical Christianity in with cultic aberrations like the Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinkers and with greed-motivated, power-mongering, historical misuses of religion by those seeking personal gain and political power.6

    Biblical history, in contrast to the assertions in these straw man arguments, reveals that the real cause of such evils is the sinful nature of man. God created man and woman—Adam and Eve—as perfectly good people, but they chose to rebel against God. The evils in the world are not God’s fault, but man’s. And likewise the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity are man’s fault, not God’s. (For that matter, all the evils perpetrated regardless of the excuse given are man’s fault, not God’s.) And a proper understanding of biblical Christianity should not only arm people against falling for cultic claims and false rallying cries but also enable them to see that the claims made by people like Dawkins just don’t hold water. "


    "How Dawkins Thinks We Should Teach Children"

    "Dawkins claims that we should teach children about religions so that they can understand literature, but that we should discourage them from actually embracing any belief. “There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,” Dawkins says, adding, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.”7

    Dawkins calls it child abuse for parents to teach their children that they should actually believewhat their parents believe (unless of course the parents embrace the religion of atheism, which Dawkins fails to acknowledge is itself a “religion”—a belief that God does not exist). He labels religious teaching “indoctrination.” As one journalist correctly observes, “Religious people, though, would argue that advancing Dawkins’ views on evolution and the lack of a deity would also constitute a form of indoctrination, especially if these elements are trumped as ‘reason’ and held above theological standing.” 8 Thus, Dawkins is not at all opposed to indoctrinating children so long as they are indoctrinated to believe as he does. Let’s examine his take on religious teaching for children from several angles."

    "Withhold Your Personal Beliefs From Your Children"

    "First of all, consider the rather preposterous notion that Dawkins would have parents teach their children that people believe lots of things, yet they should refrain from teaching what they personally believe. Going even farther, the Daily Mail reports he said that when teaching religion and parental beliefs, “scorn should be poured on its claims.”9 Dawkins would therefore encourage all parents with religious convictions (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to lie to their children. Such a practice would in fact require Christian parents to weave a whole web of deception. And they should weave this web of deception in order to deprive their children of knowledge they themselves believe is valuable and even essential for life.

    Aside from the complete lack of integrity such a behavior would require, such a nonsensical scenario would deprive a child of any knowledge of what or whom to believe, trust, and respect. Children so raised would have no idea of how to gain knowledge and understanding of the world—at least unless the state stepped in and indoctrinated them in accord with a Dawkins-style belief system.

    For in truth, even the atheistic belief that there is no God is a religion. Atheists claim they are non-religious, but they use their set of beliefs as a way to explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). There is no such thing as a non-religious person—you are either for Jesus Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30). Dawkins states that he is committed to a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, Dawkins has chosen to exclude all supernatural ideas about our origins and about his own eternal destiny. In essence, Dawkins is merely advocating that children be indoctrinated in accord with hisbeliefs rather than their parents’ beliefs. And because he is particularly bothered by the idea that there is an actual hell where some people will suffer for eternity, he labels such a teaching as “abusive.” "

    "A Distorted Understanding Of Christianity"

    "Secondly, Dawkins has a very distorted understanding of Christianity. In his oft-cited anecdote to justify the non-teaching of faith to children, he refers to “the mental abuse of being told about Hell.” In a January interview, Dawkins said, “‘It seems to me that telling children such that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever … It seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress’ than being sexually abused.” 10 "


    “Forcing” Religion On Your Children"

    "Finally, Dawkins seems to think that teaching a child to identify with the parents’ faith is the same as “forcing” a religion on the child. He says, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.”

    "Yet history, common sense, and the Bible make it clear that ultimately no person can be coerced to believe anything by another individual—God’s Word teaches that each person is held accountable for his or her own beliefs and actions. Freedom of religion is about being allowed to live in accordance with your own religious beliefs. (Furthermore, freedom of religion includes the freedom to teach your children your faith—the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.)11 "

    "Throughout history parents have taught their children their own religious beliefs. And throughout history children have eventually evaluated these teachings for themselves—some reject their parents’ beliefs and others do not. We at Answers in Genesis emphasize the importance of giving children true biblical answers about life and life’s issues—not to indoctrinate them or to enslave their minds—but to equip them. We want children to grow up with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the most important decisions in life. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "

    "Conclusion: What Really Harms a Child"

    "Child abuse? We hate to abuse the term, as Dawkins and others do. Still, we have to point out that the very things Dawkins advocates—to deprive a child of living water (John 4:10–14) and the spiritual nourishment (1 Corinthians 3:2Hebrews 5:141 Corinthians 10:1–4) available in the Bible, to deprive a child of the knowledge that they were created by a God who loves them (John 3:16Colossians 1:16John 1:3–4,12–14), to deprive a child of the knowledge that the evils of life are rooted in man’s sinful decisions, to deprive a child of biblical answers for life’s greatest questions, to deprive a child of the truth about how to be saved now and forever, to deprive a child of the knowledge that “Jesus loves me” (Galatians 2:20)—can cripple and irreparably harm a child, for now and eternity."

    "As Christian parents, when you ponder your responsibility to teach your children what the Bible says, remember that they can best build genuine faith in Jesus Christ through God’s powerful Word (Romans 10:17Romans 1:16Hebrews 4:12). It is no wonder that self-appointed enemies of Jesus Christ—like Dawkins and Krauss—are afraid for you to teach Scripture to your children. It is no wonder that the enemies of God want to stigmatize religion—and especially Christianity—by the inflammatory epithet of “child abuse.” Take heart and don’t fail in your God-given responsibility. Don’t be intimidated by the twenty-first century echoes of the mantra espoused by so many parents during the last few decades of the twentieth—to let their children grow up with no religious instruction under the illusion they would one day seek out any information they need. Instead, remember daily what the Apostle Paul told to his protégé Timothy, recalling that Timothy’s mother and grandmother had taught him God’s Word from childhood:

    But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:13–17) "


    I get the impression that maybe, Mr. Dawkins, enjoys the spotlight, that via, his own mouth, self created for himself?

    The below, is from reference material for you.

    https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/is-it-child-abuse-to-teach-christianity-to-your-children-dawkins-thinks-so/

    @ZeusAres42 

    Your argument:

    ("Why should the "epistemically neutral position/term" have to only to apply to just science? Why also not philosophy? 

    I'm not trying to educate you on anything. I'm just inviting you to at least entertain the idea that there might be a neutral position on this matter. 

    And maybe if you are at least willing to engage in an enjoyable exchange of ideas I'm sure that you will probably teach me something that I didn't know or consider which I'm all very open to.  

    Or you can just continue to be needlessly defensive; the choice is yours. ")


    @ZeusAres42


    I'm not being defensive, I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.

    And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?

    So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity? 
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @TKDB

    You say ....Answers  in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "


    My reply .......That’s hilarious coming from a fundie who’s a follower of the the lunatic Ken Ham Whos lunacy has no equal ......Ken Ham, also known as Ken Sham, is the problematic president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics ministry, and a Bible-ical literalist.


    Rational Wiki

    Although he hails from Australia, where beer does flow and men and  the kangaroos floated during the Flood, he now lives permanently in Kentucky, in his office in the Creation "Museum". Ham wants children to be Indoctrinated taught "to think biblically"[2] (which is for certain values of think, of course). On a mission from God, he is a frequent speaker at homeschooling conferences and creationist events, where one of his favorite "arguments" is "Were you there?"[3]

    Ham is also the originator of the eponymous debating technique known as the "Ham Hightail". He is known for ruthlessly blocking people on twitter who disagree with him


    PlaffelvohfenRS_master
  • AlofRIAlofRI 353 Pts
    @TKDB Mr. Dawkins opinion is his right, and it DOES count as much as anyone else' . I would call it closer to brainwashing, but, some would consider that "abuse". That said, a parent has the right to teach their kids what they wish. In this case, IMO, sadly, and that's MY opinion. 
    My Grandsons have been raised Catholic, they've graduated college with honors, one teaches at an expensive boarding school, the other is in finance. They say grace at every meal. Fine boys. Religion has not hurt them. Others in the world HAVE been hurt by the same, or other, religion. Like anything else, it can be good … or not.

    I'm with Mr. Dawkins mostly. I think it does as much (and more) harm as it does good. Millions have died because of religious differences. Atheists don't try to brainwash children, destroy indigenous cultures, burn people at stakes for "heresy", protest military heroes funerals, molest little boys while preaching about Christ or pray for the end of the world or consider homosexuality as a mental illness …. as an organization, as a belief. There are whackos in  any group, there are whacko atheists. I think the world would be better off without religion, but, I admit some actually NEED it. The worst danger comes when it mixes with politics and becomes a secondary (or primary) "control entity". In this day and age we should be moving away from myth and looking to save the world ourselves, not praying for some god to do it. I've been looking for one as others have for centuries …. there is no proof of anyone finding one, (except in their own mind).
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @Dee

    Your anti religious argument, is as dated, as it can get.

    It's the same anti religious rhetoric, taught by some of the previous, anti religious ideologists, to their likeminded sisters, and brethren:

    Idheinz, SemiSteve, and Rihanna.

    I give them their due credit, for educating me, from the individual confines of the internet, assistant with the sharing of their anti religious mindsets.

    "My reply .......That’s hilarious coming from a fundie who’s a follower of the the lunatic Ken Ham Whos lunacy has no equal ......Ken Ham, also known as Ken Sham, is the problematic president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics ministry, and a Bible-ical literalist."


    "Rational Wiki

    Although he hails from Australia, where beer does flow and men and  the kangaroos floated during the Flood, he now lives permanently in Kentucky, in his office in the Creation "Museum". Ham wants children to be Indoctrinated taught "to think biblically"[2] (which is for certain values of think, of course). On a mission from God, he is a frequent speaker at homeschooling conferences and creationist events, where one of his favorite "arguments" is "Were you there?"[3]

    Ham is also the originator of the eponymous debating technique known as the "Ham Hightail". He is known for ruthlessly blocking people on twitter who disagree with him "

    @Dee

    And I stand by my counter argument, in regards relates to any anti religious ideologists argument:


    I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.

    And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?


    So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity?  

    @Dee

    Are you maybe, "anti religious children," oriented, when it comes to those parents who are raising their kids with Christianity? 


  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @AlofRI

    "Mr. Dawkins opinion is his right, and it DOES count as much as anyone else."

    No, he's wrong.

    Is he a doctor, or can justifiably diagnose people, from a stage, and casually label Christian parents, as child abusers?

    Like I expressed before, I believe that Mr. Dawkins appears to enjoy the attention from his own anti religious opinion?

    And I reiterate the same argument below:

    Another anti religious individual, thought, that he was being wise, by sharing Mr. Dawkins quotation, and thought that the other like minded anti religious individuals, like himself, would get a kick, out of such a statement, because this is the internet, and some of the anti religious individuals, can carry on with such unfounded statements, and no ones, going to challenge them on their anti religious, quotations, or opinions?

    When the anti religious wants to make statements, about Christian parents, in regards to their kids, they're crossing a line, that they can't back up from, can they? 

    "Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children? "


    "Dawkins Thinks So"


    "Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse."

    "Call it “child abuse” and you get everybody’s attention. That’s the latest headline-gaining tactic employed by atheists whose agenda is to “protect” children from their parents’ religion. The Daily Mail has tweaked the “twitters” once again by its article opening with “Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as ‘child abuse.’”1

    Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families’ religious beliefs is child abuse. He considers this form of “abuse” to be more devastatingly and permanently harmful than sexual abuse. Though he has said this before, his remarks returned to headline status after he reiterated these claims April 21 at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival. "

    "Misuse of the Term “Child Abuse”

    "This gross misuse of the phrase “child abuse” by Dawkins is not unique to him. Just a few months ago, another outspoken atheist, Lawrence Krauss, labeled the teaching of young-earth creationism as “child abuse.” And a 1997 speech by Amnesty International spokesman Nicholas Humphrey proclaimed that “freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with” and then just seconds later illogically and inconsistently proclaimed that society should protect children from their parents’ religious teaching.2 "


    "The Attack on Christianity"

    "Dawkins, Krauss, Humphrey, and countless others get a great deal of attention by claiming that teaching children to accept the religious beliefs of their parents is abusive. The particular anecdotal example Dawkins uses to “prove” his point—that religious teaching is a more crippling form of child abuse than physical abuse—is recounted in his 2006 book The God Delusion. Dawkins wrote the following: 

    I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst.4

    Dawkins says, “But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.”5

    Dawkins and others, like Humphrey, are very much in the habit of engaging in logical fallacies in their rhetoric attacking both Christianity and religious teaching for children. They condemn biblical Christianity along with other religions, including those that do have oppressive doctrinal tenets. They unjustly and erroneously blame cultural and societal evils (like the view that children and women are property) on biblical Christianity. They lump biblical Christianity in with cultic aberrations like the Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinkers and with greed-motivated, power-mongering, historical misuses of religion by those seeking personal gain and political power.6

    Biblical history, in contrast to the assertions in these straw man arguments, reveals that the real cause of such evils is the sinful nature of man. God created man and woman—Adam and Eve—as perfectly good people, but they chose to rebel against God. The evils in the world are not God’s fault, but man’s. And likewise the evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity are man’s fault, not God’s. (For that matter, all the evils perpetrated regardless of the excuse given are man’s fault, not God’s.) And a proper understanding of biblical Christianity should not only arm people against falling for cultic claims and false rallying cries but also enable them to see that the claims made by people like Dawkins just don’t hold water. "


    "How Dawkins Thinks We Should Teach Children"

    "Dawkins claims that we should teach children about religions so that they can understand literature, but that we should discourage them from actually embracing any belief. “There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,” Dawkins says, adding, “What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that.”7

    Dawkins calls it child abuse for parents to teach their children that they should actually believewhat their parents believe (unless of course the parents embrace the religion of atheism, which Dawkins fails to acknowledge is itself a “religion”—a belief that God does not exist). He labels religious teaching “indoctrination.” As one journalist correctly observes, “Religious people, though, would argue that advancing Dawkins’ views on evolution and the lack of a deity would also constitute a form of indoctrination, especially if these elements are trumped as ‘reason’ and held above theological standing.” 8 Thus, Dawkins is not at all opposed to indoctrinating children so long as they are indoctrinated to believe as he does. Let’s examine his take on religious teaching for children from several angles."

    "Withhold Your Personal Beliefs From Your Children"

    "First of all, consider the rather preposterous notion that Dawkins would have parents teach their children that people believe lots of things, yet they should refrain from teaching what they personally believe. Going even farther, the Daily Mail reports he said that when teaching religion and parental beliefs, “scorn should be poured on its claims.”9 Dawkins would therefore encourage all parents with religious convictions (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to lie to their children. Such a practice would in fact require Christian parents to weave a whole web of deception. And they should weave this web of deception in order to deprive their children of knowledge they themselves believe is valuable and even essential for life.

    Aside from the complete lack of integrity such a behavior would require, such a nonsensical scenario would deprive a child of any knowledge of what or whom to believe, trust, and respect. Children so raised would have no idea of how to gain knowledge and understanding of the world—at least unless the state stepped in and indoctrinated them in accord with a Dawkins-style belief system.

    For in truth, even the atheistic belief that there is no God is a religion. Atheists claim they are non-religious, but they use their set of beliefs as a way to explain life without God—they worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). There is no such thing as a non-religious person—you are either for Jesus Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30). Dawkins states that he is committed to a naturalistic worldview. Therefore, Dawkins has chosen to exclude all supernatural ideas about our origins and about his own eternal destiny. In essence, Dawkins is merely advocating that children be indoctrinated in accord with hisbeliefs rather than their parents’ beliefs. And because he is particularly bothered by the idea that there is an actual hell where some people will suffer for eternity, he labels such a teaching as “abusive.” "

    "A Distorted Understanding Of Christianity"

    "Secondly, Dawkins has a very distorted understanding of Christianity. In his oft-cited anecdote to justify the non-teaching of faith to children, he refers to “the mental abuse of being told about Hell.” In a January interview, Dawkins said, “‘It seems to me that telling children such that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever … It seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress’ than being sexually abused.” 10 "


    “Forcing” Religion On Your Children"

    "Finally, Dawkins seems to think that teaching a child to identify with the parents’ faith is the same as “forcing” a religion on the child. He says, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.”

    "Yet history, common sense, and the Bible make it clear that ultimately no person can be coerced to believe anything by another individual—God’s Word teaches that each person is held accountable for his or her own beliefs and actions. Freedom of religion is about being allowed to live in accordance with your own religious beliefs. (Furthermore, freedom of religion includes the freedom to teach your children your faith—the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.)11 "

    "Throughout history parents have taught their children their own religious beliefs. And throughout history children have eventually evaluated these teachings for themselves—some reject their parents’ beliefs and others do not. We at Answers in Genesis emphasize the importance of giving children true biblical answers about life and life’s issues—not to indoctrinate them or to enslave their minds—but to equip them. We want children to grow up with the tools they need to make informed decisions about the most important decisions in life. The very name of our ministry, Answers in Genesis, makes it clear we are not indoctrinating and brainwashing with blind faith, but providing reasonable, scientific, and biblical answers for questions on origins. "

    "Conclusion: What Really Harms a Child"

    "Child abuse? We hate to abuse the term, as Dawkins and others do. Still, we have to point out that the very things Dawkins advocates—to deprive a child of living water (John 4:10–14) and the spiritual nourishment (1 Corinthians 3:2Hebrews 5:141 Corinthians 10:1–4) available in the Bible, to deprive a child of the knowledge that they were created by a God who loves them (John 3:16Colossians 1:16John 1:3–4,12–14), to deprive a child of the knowledge that the evils of life are rooted in man’s sinful decisions, to deprive a child of biblical answers for life’s greatest questions, to deprive a child of the truth about how to be saved now and forever, to deprive a child of the knowledge that “Jesus loves me” (Galatians 2:20)—can cripple and irreparably harm a child, for now and eternity."

    "As Christian parents, when you ponder your responsibility to teach your children what the Bible says, remember that they can best build genuine faith in Jesus Christ through God’s powerful Word (Romans 10:17Romans 1:16Hebrews 4:12). It is no wonder that self-appointed enemies of Jesus Christ—like Dawkins and Krauss—are afraid for you to teach Scripture to your children. It is no wonder that the enemies of God want to stigmatize religion—and especially Christianity—by the inflammatory epithet of “child abuse.” Take heart and don’t fail in your God-given responsibility. Don’t be intimidated by the twenty-first century echoes of the mantra espoused by so many parents during the last few decades of the twentieth—to let their children grow up with no religious instruction under the illusion they would one day seek out any information they need. Instead, remember daily what the Apostle Paul told to his protégé Timothy, recalling that Timothy’s mother and grandmother had taught him God’s Word from childhood:

    But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:13–17) "



    I get the impression that maybe, Mr. Dawkins, enjoys the spotlight, that via, his own mouth, self created for himself?

    The below, is from reference material for you.

    https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/is-it-child-abuse-to-teach-christianity-to-your-children-dawkins-thinks-so/ 

    @AIofRI

    Anyone can make statements, but unless there is evidence, beyond the very words outside of an anti religious individuals unfounded opinion, they are but expelled air, coming out ones own mouth, after speaking.

    And some, of the anti religious individuals, have mastered that anti religious practice, of wasting the air from their own lungs, to justify the anti religious attitudes, residing within their own minds?

    All children are equal, and all parents are equal, whether they are religious oriented, or anti religious oriented?

    AlofRI
  • To Dee.

    They were official lab tests. So the entire scientific community has validated there accuracy. You post on a forum. Lab tests that are certified outweighs your opinion of objective reality. So you can continue looking retarded and slashing your credibility disagreeing with certified lab tests you only look like a moron. At this point I'm considering you to be in the third grade ignoring your stupid .
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited July 17
    @ZeusAres42

    Oh my, isn't Richard Dawkins, in a sense, an anti religious spokesman?

    And you're, in a sense, an anti religious spokesman as well, I believe? 

    He's a spokesman, that has gone before various groups of individuals, who showed up, I'm guessing to find out, how they'll be entertained?

    And here you are, and myself, and others, showed up to find out, how we'll be entertained? 

    There are videos of Mr. Dawkins on YouTube, and they did entertain.

    "Exactly where in this thread did I mention anything about Richard Dawkins, or talk about any of the things that you referenced in your response to me? 

    Also, would you care to actually take issue with the actual content of what I specifically said rather than conjecturing up theories about why I might have said what I said." 
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @TKDB


    You say ......And I stand by my counter argument, in regards relates to any anti religious ideologists argument:


    My reply .....You haven’t even attempted a reply to what I stated about Ken Ham your leader 


    You say ......I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family.


    My reply ......That’s nothing to do with me why are you telling me this?


    You say ......And when an anti religious talking head, like Mr. Dawkins, wants to make such statements, I choose, the unborn babies, baby's, toddlers, kids, children, and those parents, who are raising their families, and aren't, or haven't broken any law's, and haven't been investigated by Child Protective Services, or law enforcement over child abuse, because some parents choose to teach Christianity to their own families?


    My reply .....Why are you telling me? Ring up Dawkins and tell him what’s someone else got to do with me?


    You say ......So Mr. Dawkins, can unjustifiably say what he wants, but his own opinion, doesn't count, when the religious parents aren't harming their kids with Christianity?  


    My reply ......Why are you telling me about someone I don’t know?


    You say .......Are you maybe, "anti religious children," oriented, when it comes to those parents who are raising their kids with Christianity? 


    My reply ......No I’m not anti religious , can you now attempt to answer what I actually said instead of your assorted ramblings of things I never said?

    AlofRIZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    edited July 17
    @jesusisGod777


    You say ......They were official lab tests


    There weren’t which is why you cannot post them up 


    You say .....So the entire scientific community has validated there accuracy. 


    My reply ......They haven’t which is why you cannot post up where the entire community admit this , that’s two lies from the “Christian “ now


    You say ......You post on a forum. 


    My reply ..... Very well spotted 


    You say .......Lab tests that are certified outweighs your opinion of objective reality. 


    My reply ......Labs tests that you cannot post a link to you mean? Where did I venture an opinion on objective reality you idiot?


    You say ......So you can continue looking retarded and slashing your credibility 


    My reply .....The only one doing that is you as you’re an idiot who shoots their fool mouth off and lies , and has nothing to back their up with 


    You say .....disagreeing with certified lab tests you only look like a moron. 


    My reply .....I don’t disagree with certified lab tests I make my evaluation when presented with such which is something you have failed to do you idiotic troll.


    You say.......At this point I'm considering you to be in the third grade ignoring your stupid .


    My reply .....This coming from a foul mouthed angry so called “Christian” who cannot spell and has the brain powers of a  unwatered pot plant is hilarious 

  • AlofRIAlofRI 353 Pts
    @RS_master ;

    Many have tried to prove you wrong for at least 20 centuries. None have succeeded. 

    HE only exists in the imaginations of those who believe in a book, compiled by an Emperor, out of short stories, out of ancient scrolls and chiseled stone tablets hundreds of years after the "facts". Since then NO ONE has actually PROVEN you wrong. I wouldn't waste more time trying to prove a compilation of myths were a compilation of truths.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited July 17
    @Dee

    I'm not familiar with him, don't give him funds, and he's not my leader.

    Oh he's religious, so attach him, to your argument, for the sake of your own argument right? 

    "My reply .....You haven’t even attempted a reply to what I stated about Ken Ham your leader."

    "You say ......I have a justifiable counter argument, being that I'm pro unborn baby, toddler, kids, children, and family, and I'm pro Christian family."


    "My reply ......That’s nothing to do with me why are you telling me this?"

    Because when it comes to being anti religious, some of the anti religious, and their anti religious ideology, care less about other's, and are verbally chronic about reinforcing their anti religious mindsets? 

    I don't know where you're from.

    But globally, it's voluntary to be religious, just as its voluntary to be anti religious.

    And the internet, is the biggest communication church on the planet.

    Because via, their computers, millions of individuals like you, and I, come to this Church of Communication, right?

    And the anti religious individuals, have been coming to this Church for years, so welcome sister, your brethren, will appreciate your anti religious efforts?

    It's the same anti religious rhetoric, taught by some of the previous, anti religious ideologists, to their likeminded sisters, and brethren:


    Idheinz, SemiSteve, and Rihanna.

    I give them their due credit, for educating me, from the individual confines of the internet, assisting, with the sharing of their anti religiousmindsets?

    @Dee

    And your same anti religious rhetoric is just as educational and entertaining.

  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @TKDB



    You say ......I'm not familiar with him, don't give him funds, and he's not my leader.


    My reply ......Yet you mentioned that you follow the teachings of his ministry 


    You say .......Oh he's religious, so attach him, to your argument, for the sake of your own argument right? 


    My reply ......You’re the one who mentioned his ministry not I 



    You say .......Because when it comes to being anti religious, some of the anti religious, and their anti religious ideology, care less about other's, and are verbally chronic about reinforcing their anti religious mindsets? 


    My reply .....Why do you keep telling me about other people?


    You say .......I don't know where you're from.

    But globally, it's voluntary to be religious, just as its voluntary to be anti religious.


    My reply ......Nonsense , you asked all your children when they were very young did they want to go to church and you let them pick there own schools?


    You say ......And the internet, is the biggest communication church on the planet.

    Because via, their computers, millions of individuals like you, and I, come to this Church of Communication, right?


    My reply .....The Internet is not a church


    You say .......And the anti religious individuals, have been coming to this Church for years, so welcome sister, your brethren, will appreciate your anti religious efforts?

    It's the same anti religious rhetoric, taught by some of the previous, anti religious ideologists, to their likeminded sisters, and brethren:


    My reply .....Its a debate site look at the title of the debate , people are here to debate , I know you hate freedom of speech but there you go 


    You say .......Idheinz, SemiSteve, and Rihanna.


    I give them their due credit, for educating me, from the individual confines of the internet, assisting, with the sharing of their anti religiousmindsets?


    My reply ......There you go mentioning people I don’t know yet again 



    You say .......Dee

    And your same anti religious rhetoric is just as educational and entertaining.


    My reply ......You never address what’s asked of you why’s that?

    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    edited July 17
    @Dee

    I'm not familiar with him, don't give him funds, and he's not my leader.

    "My reply ......Yet you mentioned that you follow the teachings of his ministry."

    Prove that I stated that with my own words?

    Show the forum, that specific quotation? 


    Oh he's religious, so attach him, to your argument, for the sake of your own argument right? 

    "My reply ......You’re the one who mentioned his ministry not I."

    No, I did not, look again, and show the forum, that specific quotation? 


    Because when it comes to being anti religious, some of the anti religious, and their anti religious ideology, care less about other's, and are verbally chronic about reinforcing their anti religious mindsets? 

    "My reply .....Why do you keep telling me about other people?"

    Because you're a part of the anti religious crowd, who is educating me, and the others, who aren't anti religious oriented like yourself?


    This as well, is a part of the Anti Religious History, that has come to be a part of the internet itself, and the anti religious, are notorious for telling other's how to raise their kids, when it comes to the Christian parents?

    And apparently some of the anti religious, have an issue, with outwardly talking about kids, who aren't their own, when it comes to the Christian parents?

    So they dodge making other people's kids, as a part of their arguments, and go after the Christian parents, with their anti religious mindsets instead? 


    I don't know where you're from.

    But globally, it's voluntary to be religious, just as its voluntary to be anti religious.


    "My reply ......Nonsense , you asked all your children when they were very young did they want to go to church and you let them pick there own schools?"

    I've seen newborns in church with their parents, along with their kids, children, and other adults.

    And each time, when I've gone into a religious building, and none of them seem to have had an issue, with they, being in church, with their parents? 

    As far as schools go, some either homeschool their kids, or they go to the local schools near, or around their neighborhoods?

    I'm not familiar with any kids, who are picking their own kindergarten, elementary school, or middle school, or high schools?

    When it comes to colleges in general, that's a different conversation.



    And the internet, is the biggest communication church on the planet.

    Because via, their computers, millions of individuals like you, and I, come to this Church of Communication, right?


    "My reply .....The Internet is not a church"

    Sure it is, it's become part Anti Religious church, and part Religious church as well?

    Billions of individuals attend this Church of Communication every day. 

    You're here, just as I am, aren't you? 


    And the anti religious individuals, have been coming to this Church for years, so welcome sister, your brethren, will appreciate your anti religious efforts?

    It's the same anti religious rhetoric, taught by some of the previous, anti religious ideologists, to their likeminded sisters, and brethren:

    "My reply .....Its a debate site look at the title of the debate , people are here to debate , I know you hate freedom of speech but there you go."

    Some, are apparently, on the internet, to push their individual agendas, using the debate platforms, as their artificial pulpits? 


    And no, I don't dislike freedom of speech, but, I do believe in debating in an equal and fair manner, I discuss both sides, of the debate aisles.


    And Idheinz, SemiSteve, and rjhenn, I give them their due credit, for educating me, from the individual confines of the internet, assisting, with the sharing of their anti religiousmindsets?


    "My reply ......There you go mentioning people I don’t know yet again."

    Because you, and they, are a part of the Anti Religious History, that exists in the internet.


    And your same anti religious rhetoric is just as educational and entertaining.

    "My reply ......You never address what’s asked of you why’s that?"


    I have equally and fairly, discussed what has been addressed to me, multiple times.


  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @TKDB

    You’re obviously insane you never address anything asked all you do is tell others what you think they mean instead of what they actually say , you finish every sentence with a question mark .....yes you’re quiet mad 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2266 Pts
    The only source we have in any way suggesting the god's existence are ancient books and writings - all of which constantly contradict each other and were made at the time when people did not know much about the world. Should they be used as evidence? Well, you do not use Lord of the Rings as the evidence for existence of hobbits, do you? It is the same here.

    One thing you learn very early on in life, if you never stop thinking critically, is that a lot of people do not know what they are talking about. Adults or not, scholars or not, many people will say things that make no sense, and believe in things that exist only in their minds. A lot of people believe that "god" exists, and in the past, during the Dark Ages, virtually everyone on Earth believed that - but that belief is fundamentally based on nothing but wishful thinking.

    It is reasonable to assume that no gods exist, only our Universe does.
    RS_master
  • TKDBTKDB 340 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Care to comment on the below?

    This as well, is a part of the Anti Religious History, that has come to be a part of the internet itself, and the anti religious, are notorious for telling other's how to raise their kids, when it comes to the Christian parents?

    And apparently some of the anti religious, have an issue, with outwardly talking about kids, who aren't their own, when it comes to the Christian parents?

    So they dodge making other people's kids, as a part of their arguments, and go after the Christian parents, with their anti religious mindsets instead?  


  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    You say .....I myself have in this thread tried to be patient, kind, and give TKDB the benefit of the doubt. He is doing the exact same thing to you as he is me, and I'm taking the neutral position. I think my efforts here are obviously futile.  

    My reply ......Your patience and kindness are admirable especially when confronted with this most annoying person who keeps asking people to explain what Dawkins said and why are we not addressing the religious at churches with our anti religion mindset etc , etc ........I will try to be more charitable maybe in the future because he is obviously totally unbalanced  
    ZeusAres42
  • Neopesdom said:
    @RS_master ;Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.

    In christianity we live by faith, not by proof. 

    Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

    "For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?"  (Romans 8:24)

    hope
    ἐλπίδι (elpidi)
    Noun - Dative Feminine Singular
    Strong's Greek 1680:  Hope, expectation, trust, confidence. From a primary elpo; expectation or confidence.

    God is not looking to prove Himself to you. Can you think of a reason why that would be the case?

    By making this argument are you saying that God is above reason, and thus cannot be proved by reason?
    I think this is a rather weak way of avoiding the problem. By saying this, you essentially have blocked all the rational and logical arguments against your case.
    Can you think of a better way to argue for the existence of God?
  • RickeyDRickeyD 178 Pts
    edited December 2
    @RS_master ; Only the "fool" denies that which is before their eyes day and night (Psalm 14:1). Our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua, has provided you empirical, extant, irrefutable, evidence relevant to His validity and reality and you will be "without excuse" when you stand before Him in your atheism in Eternity! (Romans 1:18-32)

    1) God has provided His supernatural creation as preliminary evidence to draw all men unto Himself (Romans 1:18-32).

    2) God has left Eternity and entered Time some 2019-yrs. ago and walked among us for 33.5-yrs and defined His Plan and Purposes for Time and Eternity through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ-Yeshua (Philippians 2:8).

    3) God has left mankind a written Covenant of Grace between Himself and mankind establishing redemption via the forgiveness of sin by grace through faith in the Son, Jesus Christ-Yeshua (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10).




    smoothiePlaffelvohfen
  • @RickeyD You are using the bible for your reference.Is their any other proofs? Are their other sources to prove god?
    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
  • @RS_master
    I agree. How can you prove the existence of God using the holy book of God? Of course God will say that he exists.
    Also, if you try to find a source, see if you can find one from an unbiased perspective and see if you can find one based on evidence other than Biblical proof.
    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
  • @RS_master ; Yes. God has given you the Scriptures as testimony of Himself...the Scriptures are His Covenant between Himself and mankind.

    Evidence for our Creator


    Introduction


    “Christianity is the only coherent worldview with corresponding truth that defines origin-meaning-morality-destiny and directly answers with logical consistency, empirical adequacy, experiential relevance.” (Ravi Zacharias) There is ONE God and ONE Mediator for sin, Jesus Christ-Yeshua (1 Timothy 2:5).


    “There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.” Adrian Rogers


    Why did God create the Heavens and the Earth?


    The Creator of our Universe is Spirit (John 4:24) and His abode is the Spiritual Realm (John 18:36). As a result of discord, rebellion, sin, having been introduced into the Kingdom of God before the creation of Time, our Creator set-forth a Plan (2 Timothy 1:9-10) to deal with this destructive turmoil/rebellion apart from the Kingdom (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:11-17; Luke 10:18).


    Our Creator’s Plan included the creation of a separate and unique Realm apart from the Spiritual Realm where the conflict in the Kingdom could be dealt with void further destruction to God’s Kingdom. The Holy Spirit has named and identified this separate Realm as “Time.” Our Creator took elements from the Spiritual World that are not visible to our senses constrained by Time and He formed those elements into matter which are the building blocks for everything that is visible and invisible to the human eye and everything that is interacted with via mankind’s five-senses (Hebrews 11:3; Colossians 1:15-17).


    With rapidity, our Creator created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six, twenty-four-hour days (Genesis 1:1-31).


    Three-forms of evidence validating our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua…

    1) Nature

    2) The Incarnation of God in Time

    3) The Written Covenant between God and Mankind


    1) Empirical – Preliminary – Substantive – Observable Evidence = Nature


    The Universe, encompassing the Sun-Moon-Stars-Earth, descending downward to the complex human genome (life), all provide empirical, preliminary, substantive, observable, evidence for design in Nature and therefore mandate a Designer (Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7:49).


    The Holy Spirit has clearly articulated that anyone who denies these empirical, supernatural, inexplicable, forms of Nature as testimony relevant to our Creator’s validity will be “without excuse” when they stand in the Judgment before Jesus Christ-Yeshua in Eternity (Romans 1:18-32; Revelation 20:11-15). It is the preliminary evidence of Nature that confronts mankind daily/nightly and is so designed as to draw all men and women to seek knowledge of God and find life in His Name, Jesus Christ-Yeshua.


    God has so uniquely created and ordained Nature as testimony and evidence relevant to Himself that He has nullified mankind’s ability to define origin of matter or understand the supernatural Universe He has placed before us (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Origin of matter will, until the end of Time, remain a mystery to mankind as man is cognitively constrained by Time and The Curse; all that is visible and invisible to the human eye in Nature was established, created, by elements from the invisible Spiritual World; therefore, the genesis of our Creation will forever remain an enigma, a mystery, to the mind of man. Anyone seeking Truth, void a personal bias against the validity of our Creator, can easily apprehend and discern the supernatural design of creation mandating a supernatural Creator.


    “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Hebrews 11:3 (NASB)


    “He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.” Ecclesiastes 3:11 (NASB)


    2) The Incarnate, Living Word of God, Jesus Christ-Yeshua


    There exists no greater or more popular historical figure than Jesus Christ-Yeshua. The Atheist who rejects the historicity of Jesus simply rejects the overwhelming evidence for His validity readily accessible-available in Biblical and extra-Biblical as well as non-Christian, archeological, sources.


    Our Creator did not leave His Human creation to wonder or ponder about the one-true-God and His Plan and purposes for Time and Eternity, but God left the Spiritual Realm some 2019-years ago, He divided history, and entered the Realm of Time in the flesh through a virgin birth that was essential to establish Him as Messiah who would selflessly give Himself to save mankind from death in sin and death in Hell (Philippians 2:5-11; Matthew 1:23).


    During the 33.5-years of His Earthly sojourn, Jesus fulfilled over 300-Messianic prophecies as articulated in the Covenant of Law extending from the Genesis to The Book of Malachi. The statistical chances of

    In the Gospel of John, Chapter 14 v. 6, Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”


    Anyone contemplating the Deity of Jesus Christ in light of the previous Scripture (John 14:6) must come to ONE of only three-conclusions concerning Jesus Christ. Jesus is either a…

    1. liar.

    2. lunatic.

    3. Lord


    Every human being born subsequent to 33-AD and having attained an age of reason with sufficient cognitive acuity to discern the moral law as written upon our heart by our Creator (Romans 2:15) will have to choose between these three-options seeing that their eternal destiny will depend solely upon which option they choose.


    3) The written word of God, the Holy Bible


    God the Father has not only provided Nature/the Universe and the Son, Jesus Christ-Yeshua as testimony of His validity, power, dominion, but God has also provided a written “Covenant of Grace” (Matthew 26:28) to His human creation through the Holy Spirit. God the Holy Spirit meticulously, supernaturally, moved through the inner-man of 40-men of antiquity, holy men set-apart specifically for the purpose of penning on parchment the Plan and purposes of our Creator; a journey of 1400-to-1600-years, three-continents, three-languages, explaining in detail our origin, our purpose and meaning, God’s moral law and God’s Plan for the destiny of Time and Eternity.


    For those who scoff at the integrity of God’s written word and thereby call the Holy Spirit a liar, understand that the very same Creator who initiated visible matter from the unseen Spiritual World and used same to create this vast supernatural Universe and gave you the breath of life, this very same Creator is abundantly capable and qualified to provide you and provide me with the EXACT words He desires we have so that we can know Him, His Plan and purposes for Time and our individual lives. Irrespective of councils of men and theologians, critics, scholars, all of the efforts of men concerning advocating for or disparaging the Holy Scriptures, know that the Bible remains the best-selling Book in History and that God’s word will NEVER fade away (Matthew 24:35).


    Conclusion


    Our Creator has provided Human KIND with three-undeniable-forms of evidence relevant to His validity, reality, power, dominion, Deity…

    1) Nature.

    2) Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Living Word of God.

    3) A written covenant, the Holy Scriptures.


    Anyone who desires to know God intimately, personally, will find Him and enter into a relationship with Him if they will seek Him with their whole heart…He will be found by them (Jeremiah 29:11-13). God will NOT entertain or commune with a heart that does not truly desire to know Him but He is faithful to make His abode with anyone willing to come to Him in faith and believe that He is true.


    “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Hebrews 11:6 (NKJV)



  • You are still using reference from the bible. Is there any sources of proof or information which is not a bible? Is there scientific evidence? Gods`s disciples will write god exists because they would believe they saw god thus write about it so is there any other reference?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @RS_master ; As I have said, unless you possess a heart that is willing to believe, even the irrefutable, empirical, evidence, relevant to our Creator, that confronts you daily and nightly is insufficient to convince you to not die in Hell. You're a liar...you lie to me, to God, to yourself, to the world, because every man and woman having attained an age of reason with sufficient cognitive acuity to practice discernment intuitively knows there is a Creator. You may not know His Name but you intuitively know He exists. I don't play games with fools and liars.  Take your self-deception elsewhere...I'm not deceived by your tactics.

    “There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.” Adrian Rogers


    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
  • @RickeyD
    What “irrefutable empirical evidence”?
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; Let's start with the origin of matter. How did matter arrive as the building block for our Universe? Explain void our Creator?
  • edited December 4
    @RickeyD
    From an explosion known as the Big Bang, which we can see happened from the Cosmic Microwave Background. You may say that it relies on fudge factors such as dark matter and the inflation field, but we can see they exist because they fit into a more widely understood mathematical theory.
  • @RickeyD
    Also, God requires explanation as well. If you use God to explain such things as matter, then how do you explain God?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • The Big Bang has been debunked, try again?

    A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (Cosmology statement) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

    The open letter includes statements such as:

      The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.
    ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in  Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

    No one knows how the Universe began (NASA-HARVARD): http://https//www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm



    PlaffelvohfenDeexlJ_dolphin_473
  • edited December 4
    @RickeyD
    You keep making this point about the fudge factors, and I keep proving it wrong. We know that these hypothetical entities exist because we run computer simulations and we see that they must exist.
    The reason Forbes reports this because it is unusual for a scientist to prove the Big Bang wrong. It is not reported in news every time a scientist proves it right, because that it is normal, and its proof outweighs its disproof.
    The big bang has not been debunked. 
    Try again. Bye for today.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; LOL...you have not a clue.

  • DeeDee 1072 Pts
    @RickeyD

    So you worship Allah .......



    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا ٱلله 
    There is no god but God.


    مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱلله
    Muhammad is the messenger of God.

  • RickeyDRickeyD 178 Pts
    edited December 4
    @Dee ; You serve Allah, I serve Yeshua...an Eternity of difference.  See my article: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2019/07/19/allah-v-yeshua-a-cosmic-struggle-in-time-islam-v-israel/

    Allah v. Yeshua?


    Islam is most certainly an Abrahamic Religion as Islam finds its genesis in Ishmael born to Abraham through an adulterous relationship with Hagar. Ishmael is the progenitor of a people our Creator refers to as “wild donkeys” and it is through Abraham’s infidelity with Hagar that Lucifer-Satan has publicly introduced himself to mankind (Genesis 16:12; 2 Corinthians 11:14).


    Lucifer’s sin in the Kingdom was covetousness, for Lucifer passionately desired to be like the Most High and desperately desired God’s worship, authority, dominion. It is Lucifer’s attempted coup de taut in the Kingdom before the creation of Time that initiated the creation of Time, the Universe, Earth, mankind, Hell; this was done in order that the sin of Lucifer could be removed from the Kingdom and dealt with within the constraints of Time apart from the Kingdom were nothing impure is permitted to exist (2 Timothy 1:10; 1 John 3:8; Revelation 21:27).


    Lucifer, a beautiful cherub angel (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-17), coerced one-third of the entire angelic realm to follow him in a cosmic rebellion (Revelation 12:4), a coup de taut, against our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua; therefore, Lucifer and the rebellious angels (now demons) were removed from the Kingdom (Luke 10:18; Isaiah 14:12-15). Our Creator spoke into existence the realm of Time by fashioning unseen elements of the Spiritual World into matter visible to the senses of mankind constrained by Time (Hebrews 11:3) and within the constraints of Time, our Creator placed this Universe, Earth, mankind and Lucifer (Genesis 3).


    It was in the Garden of Eden that the struggle between Yeshua and Lucifer/Allah was initiated (Genesis 3:14-15) and that struggle can be observed throughout the pre-flood and post-flood generations with its most virulent episode manifesting at the Crucifixion of Yeshua. It was not until the 7th-Century that Lucifer publicly introduced himself through an Arabic moon-god (2 Corinthians 11:14) and a false prophet, desert murderer and pedophile named Muhammad. It is through the way of Islam that Allah-Satan has received power, dominion, worship, as he fervently battles against the people of Yeshua i.e. the Jews and the Christians. Allah-Satan finds acceptance and legitimacy by touting the relationship of Islam with Abraham via Hagar via Ishmael.


    Allah-Satan conspired with Hitler and untold others to destroy the Jew, but Allah-Satan in his efforts to annihilate the Jewish people unwittingly inspired the “Never Again” movement and the Nation of Israel was reborn (1948); the struggle between Allah-Satan and Yeshua has exponentially increased subsequent to the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy (Ezekiel 34:13). It will ultimately be Islam-Allah-Satan and his allies, Russia-China-Arabic coalition, that sparks the coming Apocalypse that will be a nuclear war initiated in Jerusalem, Israel. Yeshua will be victorious (Revelation 5:5)! Know your enemy!



  • There is indeed a problem of allocation of resources in modern astrophysics. Almost all the resources are spent on a few narrow subjects, that are not even practically all that useful, but sound cool - and much less is spent on actually promising research venues. NASA will spend dozens millions just to beat the current record by a bit on the most distant object captured by a telescope (which makes for a great headline, but has no scientific value), but will not spend even $10,000 to look in more detail at a star in the vicinity of the Sun and compare its chemical composition to the Sun's.

    This problem, however, is quite separate from the problems with the Big Bang. Which, again, are there, but they are not what you think they are. The Big Bang has not been "debunked", and, if anything, it is holding stronger than ever. The problems with it are certain parts of the timeline that defy description in modern physics - however, people are working on theoretical models, and there has been a lot of progress made in just the last few years.

    It is cute when people think that a couple of fine issues with a theory invalidates the whole theory.
    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch